Here I am on a May, 4, 2009 Bloggingheads with Emily Bazelon, raising the question question of religious diveristy in the wake of the Souter retirement. (This recorded on May, 4, 2009 , before Obama had nominated Sotormayor.)

Now, Justice Stevens is the only Justice who was raised in the Protestant tradition. The other 2 Justices are Jewish. I anticipate that there will be little discussion of this, but I find it hard to believe that Obama will not see the lack of diversity as a problem and choose a Protestant.

Oh, Annie, don't you hope so? It would be wonderful if our President would install a Protestant who followed the teachings of great thinkers like Harry Emerson Fosdick and Henry Sloane Coffin. Now is the time to renounce fundamentalism and reaffirm a proper alignment with mainline Protestantism. I and my friends from church will be praying to the higher powers in which we believe that this will happen. Pray too, Annie!

But Professor, there are no current Justices raised in the Marxist/Humanist Faith, and Obama also has his loyalty to consider to that great Faith Tradition that his Gradmother raised his mother and himself in.

I think the Protestant vs. Catholic demographic marker has much less salience today than it did a generation ago. Religious diversity on the Court is an interesting question but I don't think the lack of reporting on the issue is due to some taboo or political correctness (the media showed no shame in discussing the sex/race issue in the Sotomayor coverage). Its not covered because the people that would presumably care the most about it (Protestants), simply don't see this as a problem.

To the extent diverse religious perspectives are valuable to judicial decisionmaking, the Catholic and Protestant perspectives are not that radically different. On an intellectual/academic level, you can certainly cite examples of differences, but I don't think many people really have a very developed intellectual relationship with their religion.

To the extent diverse cultural perspectives are useful to judicial decisionmaking, those differences are much less salient than they were a generation ago, and much, much less salient than differences on account of a person's experience of their sex or race.

Isn't it just possible that the same people who are interested in abiding by many large legalistic constructions about personal life that are constantly up for debate would also gravitate toward being judge?

I find it hard to believe that Obama will not see the lack of diversity as a problem and choose a Protestant.

If he wants some real diversity he ought to think outside the box in choosing the cult of the next Justice. He should appoint a Scientologist or a Raellian or one of those Falun Gong guys. Actually, in those Supreme Court robes I think a Whirling Dervish would look really cool.

If a President Palin were to appoint a highly qualified traditional Protestant believer, like former Attorney General John Ashcroft, then that would be a fun confirmation to watch. Otherwise the Protestant designation means a Mutant ( my new favorite word)of a traditional Protestant, and that would be a meaningless difference and would upset no one.

From what I recall (and "confirmed" by Wikipedia) Thomas was born into a protestant family, raised Roman Catholic but left sometime during or after college. He then returned to the church after he was on the court for some time. I suppose this makes Thomas the last protestant Justice appointed and confirmed to the Supreme Court (though he may not have been "raised in the Protestant tradition.")

But really, let us not focus on Thomas, everyone knows in their heart of hearts that Thomas was not the best qualified judge in the country when he was nominated.

But really, let us not focus on Thomas, everyone knows in their heart of hearts that Thomas was not the best qualified judge in the country when he was nominated.

Certainly neither was Souter nor O'Connor. Nor Sotomayor, nor Alito, though both were closer. Yet people just want to talk about Justice Thomas.

And I'd take Thomas's opinions over all four of those, both for reasoning and for the pure pleasure of reading them. It's pretty remarkable considering that he didn't even grow up speaking standard English, but the Geechee/Gullah creole.

The best qualified judges don't get nominated, because they've said or done something controversial.

Forget the religious diversity already. We need a justice who has been trained in math, science, economics or ANYTHING not wishy-washy like English, History, Political Science, Foreign Affairs and so on and on and on. Breyer is skilled in math and science, but when was the last time we had anyone on SCOTUS with an advanced degree in something substantial?

Protestants are about 60% of the country, and still comprise the majorities in elective office in 41-44 States.

And just as importantly, come from the Heartland of the country which has very different values than the East Coast corridor and California that all the other Justices were born in, or were educated in then lived and worked in for most of their adult lives before their SCOTUS selection (Roberts, Thomas).

Just as having 7 Catholics and 2 Jews, or 6 Catholics and 3 Jews (2 of the 3 top contenders mentioned besides Sotomayor were Jewish) - would not be very good...

Historically, the Court and the President reflected an attempt to spread final Top Legal Power amongst the States. And amongst various law schools and Court Districts. The present concentration on just a few law schools, and people from just a few states is probably not healthy.

For some time now, the KKK and white militia units have been accepting Catholics as members. This was not part of a big tent outreach program. Catholic/Protestant is no longer a meaningful cultural line in this country. It's like discriminating on a blue eye/brown eye axis.....I would prefer that the KKK remain loyal to their roots and continue to hate Catholics, but there you have it. The KKK is more tolerant than Althouse.